WITN10370137
WITN10370137
Chris M Day b
17 March 2014 09:
Chris Aujard
Ruth Phillips
Fw: Liknlaters scope paper
Chris,
Let's catch up on this (and cover off insurance next steps as we briefly discussed at dinner on Thursday) later today.
Ruth, please find us a suitable time.
Thanks,
Chris
From: Neil McCausland [mailtot.
Sent: Monday, March 17,2014 rsal Time
;Alwen Lyons.
Virginia Holmes i
Tim Franklin +; ‘Callard Richard (ShEx)'
; Paula Vennells; Chris M
i
‘Susannah Hooper”
Day; Chris Aujard
Subject: RE: Likniaters scope paper
I tend to agree with Alasdair here.
The review was ‘fuller’ than I had expected it to be.
Coming away from the ARC, my head had the following questions;
1. From a strict legal point of view, what is our bottom line for compensation from the cases in the
scheme? (i.e. - if we were to hand this over to the insurers, what would the outcome likely to be? At
the ARC this seemed to be a very small figure, in that we thought there were weak legal grounds from
the claimants).
2. What is our likely bill if we follow our current path? (From Belinda's paper, this felt like more than
@5m internal costs, and more than 6m costs in compensation - but both these figures felt like they
had ample potential to grow)
3. Depending on the first 2 answers, are we still right to pursue the current path, or is there a more
pragmatic way that we can accelerate the cases? I viewed this as an internal decision, as it is loaded
with politics and complications.
So, I think question 1 needs legal input, but questions 2 and 3 felt more like we should be coming up with the
answers ourselves.
All the best
Neil
From: Alasdair Marnoch [mailto
Sent: 16 March 2014 18:56
Callard Richard (ShEx); Susannah Hooper, Paula Vennells; Chris M Day; Chris Aujar
Subject: Re: Liknlaters scope paper
ak.
Alwen
I agree with the legal review of our current legal position but do not believe we should be starting a review of the
Scheme. in my mind thus could undermine our plan and create confusion. The key question is, notwithstanding all
WITN10370137
WITN10370137
the other work, what is our minimum legal position of the PO in relation to the claims made. As we discussed at the
ARC we may chose to take a less legalistic view (commercial, reputation, political, fairness etc) but in mind the
question is strictly a legal one.
Happy to discuss with CA if that will help
A
Sent from my iPhone
On 14 Mar 2024, at 09:59, “Alwen Lyons". GRO } wrote:
Dear All
Just a gentle reminder.
On Tuesday I circulated a paper, on behalf of Chris Aujard, setting out the scope of the Sparrow
work which we are asking Linklaters to undertake. (Copy attached for convenience).
We need to push ahead with this work so could I ask for any comments by no later than first thing
Monday morning.
Thank you Susannah for yours.
Many thanks
Alwen
Alwen Lyons I Company Secretary
<image001.gif>
<image002,png>
<image003.png> I
<image004.png>
<image005.png>
<image006 gif> @postofficenews
<image007.png>
This email and any attachments are confidential and intended for the addressee only. If you are not
the named recipient, you must not use, disclose, reproduce, copy or distribute the contents of this
communication. If you have received this in error, please contact the sender by reply email and then
delete this email from your system. Any views or opinions expressed within this email are solely those
of the sender, unless otherwise specifically stated.
POST OFFICE LIMITED is registered in England and Wales no 2154540. Registered Office: 148
OLD STREET, LONDON EC1V 9HQ
<Scope Paper V1.docx>